Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9475
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9595-I
2-AT&SF-I-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Barbara W. Doering when award was rendered.
( Thurman Eugene Young
Parties to Dispute:
( Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Petitioner requests determination as to whether The Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company violated Rule 40(a), (b), (c) of the Agreement:
between The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and its employes
represented by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
AFL-CIO (the "Agreement"), to wit:
"Discipline Rule 40
(a) No employe shall be disciplined without: first being given a
fair and impartial investigation which shall be promptly held, unless
such employe shall accept: dismissal or other discipline in writing
and waive formal investigation. Suspension for flagrant rules violations
pending an investigation shall not constitute a violation of this rule.
An employe involved in a formal investigation may be represented thereat,
if he so desires, by a duly accredited representative of his craft and
by one member of the Shop Committee, only one of whom may interrogate
witnesses.
(b) Prior to the investigation, the employe alleged to be at fault
shall be apprised of the precise nature of the charge sufficiently
in advance of the time set for investigation to allow reasonable
opportunity to secure the presence of necessary witnesses.
(c) A copy of the transcript of the evidence taken at a formal
investigation shall be furnished to the employe or his representative."
Petitioner further requests determination as to whether The Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company violated Rule 31C. of its General Rules
for the Guidance of Employes, Form
2626
Standard, Revised
1978,
to wit:
"C. No discipline will be noted against an employe's record without
notice to the person affected, and an opportunity given for formal
investigation and defense."
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act:
as approved June 21,
1934.
Form I
Page 2
Award No. 9475
Docket No.
9595-I
2-AT&SP-I-'83
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Carrier moves to dismiss for the reason that the claim is not properly
before the Board since Claimant failed to exhaust appeals on the property before
filing with the Board. It is clear from the record that there is merit to Carrier's
argument and that Claimant's Ex Parte Submission t o the Board was premature. The
Railway Labor Act, Rule 39 of the Agreement, and Circular No. 1 require that
claims be filed, progressed, and conferenced on the property prior to submission
to the Board.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
v
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May, 1983.